Macleans.ca » veterans affairshttp://www.macleans.ca
Canada's national weekly current affairs magazineTue, 03 Mar 2015 19:12:45 +0000en-CAhourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2Wounded veterans told to verify condition every three yearshttp://www.macleans.ca/news/wounded-veterans-told-to-verify-condition-every-3-years/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/wounded-veterans-told-to-verify-condition-every-3-years/#commentsSat, 28 Feb 2015 04:59:37 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=686203Injured veterans, including amputees, will have to verify their condition every three years to receive support

OTTAWA – A wounded soldier who lost both legs in Afghanistan will have to verify his condition and the kind of support needed, including his wheelchair, to Veterans Affairs every three years, rather than annually under a policy change.

The revision was quietly unveiled in the House of Commons on Friday by Pierre Lemieux, parliamentary secretary to the veterans minister.

In addition, Lemieux told opposition parties that veterans who are required to complete these renewals under the veterans independence program will have six months to hand in the paperwork, considerably longer than under the current system.

Paul Franklin, who was a master corporal when he lost his legs in a 2006 roadside bombing in Kandahar, has long complained about the veterans system and its annual review.

He says he was well looked after at National Defence, but has faced a bureaucratic nightmare since retiring almost six years ago and coming under the veterans department.

His plight caused a political sensation and even drew the attention of comedian Rick Mercer, who devoted a rant to the subject.

A spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O’Toole stressed the process is not meant to reconfirm the injury, but to track changes in the condition of ex-soldier.

“Veterans who have been granted entitlement for a disability benefit from (Veterans Affairs Canada) for any service-related injury or condition are not asked to prove their disability again once they have been granted entitlement,” said Marton Magnan in an email statement.

“Veterans who face serious injuries face potentially a fluctuating health condition related to the original injury. Veterans Affairs has a responsibility to proactively update the government to ensure they have the necessary support and treatment for their current condition.”

Magnan also said the government “places the highest priority on making sure Veterans and their families have the support and services they need, when they need it.”

Franklin wasn’t immediately available to comment Friday.

In early February, he told CTV’s Canada AM that veterans affairs treats him and other ex-soldiers as though they are trying to cheat the system.

The department required him to justify annually why he still qualified for home-care services and income replacement because of his disability.

The disputes got so bad, Franklin had his wheelchair taken away from him twice because it wasn’t clear which department should pay for it and which doctor’s notes were needed.

Lemieux told the Commons that O’Toole has spoken to Franklin personally.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/wounded-veterans-told-to-verify-condition-every-3-years/feed/3Projections suggest hike in some vets programs as budget shrinkshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/projections-suggest-hike-in-some-vets-programs-as-budget-shrinks/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/projections-suggest-hike-in-some-vets-programs-as-budget-shrinks/#commentsWed, 25 Feb 2015 10:22:43 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=684283Overall spending at Veterans Affairs is expected to decline by 1.5 per cent – or $54 million next year

OTTAWA – The Harper government’s road map to this year’s federal budget suggests it is prepared to pour more money into programs and services for the country’s veterans, while largely holding the line on defence spending.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement released the 2015-16 spending estimates on Tuesday, even though it’s unclear when the budget will be tabled.

The Conservative government’s final fiscal plan before this year’s election was postponed until at least April by Finance Minister Joe Oliver, who said he needed the time to assess the impact of collapsing oil prices.

The government has been under mounting political pressure to improve the suite of benefits and entitlements for ex-soldiers.

The estimates, which are not the final word on the budget, project modest increases in the amount spent on disability awards and supplementary benefits.

Despite that, overall spending at Veterans Affairs is expected to decline by 1.5 per cent— or $54 million next year, something federal officials attribute to the declining number of Second World War and Korean War veterans.

Veterans Affairs Canada spends just over $3.5 billion per year.

Over at National Defence, another politically-charged portfolio, spending is expected to increase by 1.5 per cent — $280 million — in the coming year, bringing the military budget to $18.9 billion.

Officials say they will be saving $709.2 million in capital costs, some of which is likely related to the cancellation of the army’s plans for a close-combat vehicle and delays in acquiring maritime helicopters for the air force.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/projections-suggest-hike-in-some-vets-programs-as-budget-shrinks/feed/0Feds spend $700,000 in court fighting veterans class-action lawsuithttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/feds-spend-700000-in-court-fighting-veterans-class-action-lawsuit/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/feds-spend-700000-in-court-fighting-veterans-class-action-lawsuit/#commentsWed, 28 Jan 2015 23:06:11 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=671523Case brought by group of wounded Afghan veterans who say the new veterans' charter is discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

OTTAWA – The federal government has so far spent nearly $700,000 fighting a disgruntled group of wounded Afghan veterans in court— a revelation that on Wednesday rekindled a political controversy the Conservatives had hoped was behind them.

During question period, Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to cast the ongoing court battle as the legacy of a flawed policy that was foisted on Parliament nine years ago by Paul Martin’s Liberal government.

“The government is defending a decision of the previous government, supported by all parties in the House of Commons,” Harper said, referring to the new veterans charter, which the Conservatives have championed since coming to office in 2006.

“Since the previous government imposed the new veterans charter, it has enhanced veterans services and programs by some $5 billion — opposed by the Liberals and NDP.”

In response to a written question posed by the opposition, the Department of Justice said it spent $694,070 in legal fees, while National Defence spent $3,231. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau used the cost to demand in the House that the lawsuit be dropped.

Liberal veterans critic Frank Valeriote described the government’s response as “hypocrisy,” noting that the issue for ex-soldiers is not the system itself, but the amount of funding within it.

“It is not the new veterans charter that is the problem, it’s adequacy of the funding given to those programs and the sufficiency of the awards given to our veterans through the application of the charter,” Valeriote said.

“Spending $700,000 a year to fight vets in court is not supporting our troops,” NDP Leader Tom Mulcair fumed during one heated question period exchange with Harper.

The ex-soldiers are plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court, calling the charter discriminatory under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it does not provide the same level of benefits and support as the old pension system.

In a statement of defence filed by federal lawyers, the government argues Ottawa has no special obligation or “social contract” with veterans, and that it is unfair to bind the current government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister.

Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, called the legal bill “unconscionable” and called on the government to drop the lawsuit and negotiate a settlement.

“That money should have been spent on veterans,” Blais said.

“Taxpayers deserve better. I think if taxpayers knew that this government, Stephen Harper, was spending so much on lawyers — government lawyers — to fight the wounded in court, they would appalled.”

At issue in the court case is a 1917 pledge made on the eve of the Battle of Vimy Ridge by Sir Robert Borden, who was prime minister at the time, that effectively said the country would not fail to show its appreciation for those who’ve served.

Although never explicitly codified in law, that pledge has guided the country’s policy towards veterans for decades. The government’s apparent attempt to abandon it has been central to the recent unrest among veterans.

The government had hoped some of that unrest would be muted by the decision earlier this month to shuffle Julian Fantino out of Veterans Affairs and replace him with Erin O’Toole, a retired air force officer.

O’Toole spoke in the House of Commons this week about the government’s “tremendous obligation, recognized as far back as Robert Borden,” but he emphasized that the policy was “not frozen in time.”

How O’Toole plans to bridge the contradiction between the Conservatives oft-repeated, overflowing public affection for veterans and the reality of the government’s legal arguments and actions remains unclear.

For his part, Valeriote dismisses O’Toole’s comments.

“They’re just wiggle words,” he said. “The phrase ‘not frozen in time’ means he’s just looking to abrogate their obligation.”

O’Toole wasn’t willing to discuss the lawsuit or its costs Wednesday, but did say the issue remains a priority, noting it was the first thing he asked about after taking over from Julian Fantino earlier this month.

You know a rising star in federal politics when you see one in all the usual places: the House of Commons, where a newbie with a fresh dose of charm can cut down political foes; on television, where a fresh face who can turn a phrase might sway the opinions of thousands of viewers; in newspapers, where a savvy newcomer can take advantage of the knowledge that quotes are printed a sentence—not a paragraph—at a time. The stars of tomorrow tend to have biographies built to impress: perhaps some time in the military, a stint lawyering on Bay Street balanced by a charitable mind, politics in the family—or maybe a runner-up finish as Rising Star in Maclean’s annual Parliamentarians of the Year Awards.

Erin O’Toole is all of those things, and Ottawa knew he would be somebody as soon as he was elected to the House of Commons in a by-election on Nov. 26, 2012. O’Toole attended the Royal Military College, after which he ended up as a navigator on sub-hunting Sea Kings. He practised law at Stikeman Elliott and Heenan Blaikie, and also served as in-house counsel at Procter and Gamble. All the while, O’Toole helped to found True Patriot Love, a charity that lends a hand to veterans and their families as they deal with the deluge of challenges that follows active service. His father, John, was a longtime Progressive Conservative MPP in Durham, Ont., a provincial seat the elder O’Toole first won when Mike Harris won his “Common Sense Revolution” in 1995.

O’Toole now represents the federal riding with the same borders—and his ascent hasn’t gone unnoticed: His peers voted him second only to Tory colleague Michelle Rempel when they cast their “rising star” ballots during this year’s Parliamentarians of the Year Awards. As Julian Fantino spent most of his December mocked and booed for his performance as Veterans Affairs minister, only one name bubbled up as a possible replacement: O’Toole, who’d spent two years in the Commons and more than a year defending the government’s international trade agenda under Parliament’s bright lights.

Rumours aren’t always true in Ottawa, but this one was. Cue the clichés about a navigator planning for choppy seas ahead. Durham’s man in Ottawa is now Harper’s man in cabinet to win back a voter base that Tories used to take for granted. And he has one advantage right off the bat, as he schedules his first meetings with frustrated veterans: He’s served, too.

I feel oddly proprietary about the news that Julian Fantino will no longer be Canada’s minister of Veterans Affairs. In a rare guest visit to the CBC’s At Issue panel 340 days ago, all the regular panellists said Fantino’s days were numbered. I said no. If they’re right 340 days later, are they right? If I stayed right for 340 days, does that count? Bragging rights are at stake.

And what are we to make of this peculiarity of the Prime Minister’s decision: Fantino is out from Veterans Affairs, where he had an unfortunate propensity for making combat veterans cry—but he’s not out of the cabinet altogether. He’ll be an “associate minister of national defence,” according to a PMO press release, where he’ll “support the minister of National Defence in the areas of Arctic sovereignty, information technology and foreign intelligence.” These are way more important to Canadian security than the proper treatment of its veterans. Fantino, not one to skip a beat, is already making such an argument, in a release he has distributed to reporters:

“Having served for over 40 years in law enforcement, I have an acute appreciation for the solemn duty government must undertake to protect its citizens and sovereignty. In my oath, I pledge to forcefully defend Canada’s sovereignty and national security, and continue to stand with our men and women in uniform, who uphold and protect those sacred values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.”

And then there’s Stephen Harper, who, in his own news release, describes Fantino as a key member of a refreshed national-security team, with rookie Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O’Toole.

Our government remains focused on the priorities of Canadians: jobs, the economy, safe communities and standing up for Canadian values at home and abroad. With this in mind, Mr. Fantino and Mr. O’Toole have been asked to draw on their considerable knowledge and experience to take on important portfolios. I am confident that they will deliver results and provide strong leadership as they go about addressing their duties and responsibilities.

This suggests Fantino constitutes a new middle case in the exotic bestiary of troubled Harper ministers. In a recent book, I said the Prime Minister always backs colleagues under fire—until they become too great a liability, and are given the unceremonious Guergis/Oda heave-ho, never to be heard from again. Fantino seems to be somewhere in between. Two days ago, he wrote in the Sun papers about the challenges awaiting him at Veterans Affairs, suggesting he planned to stick around longer than 48 hours. Now he’s out, except not really. Except sort of.

What purpose is served by this demure two-step? If he’s good enough for Arctic sovereignty, why was he not good enough for Veterans? If the PM needs him out at Veterans, why does he need him handling “foreign intelligence”?

Stephen Harper is not normally given to half measures. In moving Fantino, while vaunting his “considerable knowledge and experience,” the PM has acknowledged a problem while refusing to fix it. An oddly tentative move.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/man-not-quite-overboard-the-pmo-half-shuffles-fantino/feed/5For the record: Julian Fantino on his work at Veteran Affairshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-the-record-julian-fantino-on-his-work-at-veteran-affairs/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-the-record-julian-fantino-on-his-work-at-veteran-affairs/#commentsMon, 05 Jan 2015 18:13:05 +0000macleans.cahttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=659883'I will remain forever grateful to the countless veterans I had the distinct honour of meeting'

Julian Fantino has been replaced at Veterans Affairs by MP Erin O’Toole, the Prime Minister’s Office has confirmed. Fantino, who spent 18 months in the portfolio, will remain in cabinet at associate minister of defence. He released the following statement:

“I will remain forever grateful to the countless veterans I had the distinct honour of meeting in all regions of Canada, and while abroad visiting the cemeteries of those brave men and women who died in service to their country. Each and every day that I served at Veteran Affairs I was guided by a firm belief that Government must stand by those who have served and continue to serve.

“Under Prime Minister Harper, I can say with confidence that we have fully embraced that principle. I am proud of the critical improvements we have delivered for Canadian Veterans and their families – including the opening of seven Military Family Resource Centres, more than doubling the number of counseling sessions for family members; investments in critical research and new treatment benefits to assist Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder; and additional investments in front-line mental health clinics in 8 communities.

“I also want to express gratitude to many dedicated veterans stakeholders, many of whom partnered with the Government this past year to enhance mental health support and reduce bureaucratic red tape. I also wish my friend, Erin O’Toole, a patriot and veteran himself, the very best as he builds on the important work underway to improve the quality of life of veterans and their families for generations.

“I am humbled to take on this new responsibility as Canada’s Associate Minister of National Defence — where I pledge to work hard to assure the safekeeping of our land, people and interests at home and around the world. As a young immigrant boy, I imagined Canada as the great northern frontier – a country defined by its majestic northern beauty, its immense resources, rich traditions and youthful communities.

“Having served for over 40 years in law enforcement, I have an acute appreciation for the solemn duty Government must undertake to protect its citizens and sovereignty. In my oath, I pledge to forcefully defend Canada’s sovereignty and national security, and continue to stand with our men and women in uniform who uphold and protect those sacred values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

“I also want to thank Vaughan families and seniors for their continued support over the past years. I look forward to running for re-election under the steady economic leadership of Prime Minister Harper, who has delivered lower taxes, new infrastructure improvements and safe streets for Vaughan families.

“As we start anew in 2015 – let us thank our men and women in uniform who keep our country safe. God bless all who serve and keep our true north, strong and free.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-the-record-julian-fantino-on-his-work-at-veteran-affairs/feed/0Harper dumps Julian Fantino from Veterans Affairshttp://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/pm-to-dump-julian-fantino-from-veterans-affairs-sources-say/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/pm-to-dump-julian-fantino-from-veterans-affairs-sources-say/#commentsMon, 05 Jan 2015 17:37:10 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=659853Erin O'Toole tapped to lead Veterans Affairs, while Fantino will remain in cabinet in his old job as associate minister of defence

OTTAWA — The Prime Minister’s Office is confirming Julian Fantino has been shuffled out of his position as veterans affairs minister after less than 18 turbulent months.

In a quiet ceremony today at Rideau Hall, Fantino was replaced in the post by Erin O’Toole, a southern Ontario MP and former member of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

However, Fantino — a tough-talking former police chief who represents the strategically important riding of Vaughan, north of Toronto — remains in cabinet in his old job as associate minister of defence.

Fantino was seen leaving Rideau Hall after the ceremony, but would only offer New Year’s greetings to the gathered reporters.

A tough-talking former street cop who later became Toronto police chief and commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, Fantino entered federal politics by winning a byelection in 2010.

He was re-elected in 2011 and named to the cabinet in January as minister of state for seniors. He became minister of international co-operation in July 2012 and went to Veterans Affairs a year later.

He found himself in political hot water almost from the moment he took the post.

Under Fantino, the department came under heavy fire from veterans groups, the veterans ombudsman, the auditor general and the political opposition.

Fantino’s efforts to defend office closures, job cuts, lapsed budget money and tweaks to pensions and benefits provoked anger from veterans and scorn from the NDP and Liberals.

There were public relations gaffes, including a much-publicized — and televised — confrontation with veterans, and the sight of Fantino walking down a parliamentary hallway, ignoring shouted questions from the wife of a former soldier.

Government lawyers went to court to argue that the government has no special responsibility to care for veterans, although that had been iron-clad policy since the First World War.

There were howls of protest when it was learned the department had allowed more than $1 billion of its budget to lapse and return to the federal treasury since 2006. The anger only grew when the department admitted spending $4 million on ads last year promoting its efforts to help veterans return to civilian life.

Reports detailed the troubles veterans encountered getting help and benefits from the department. Other studies suggested that wounded veterans would face poverty once they hit age 65.

Efforts to calm the situation failed. Tweaks to benefits and more money for mental health brought no respite. Fantino’s chief of staff quit and was replaced by a staffer from the Prime Minister’s Office.

Retired general Walt Natynczyk, the country’s former top military commander, was also appointed as Fantino’s deputy minister and senior civil servant.

When I was preparing to write this piece, I emailed a few questions to the office of Conservative MP Laurie Hawn, a member of the Veterans Affairs committee.

Does he, as a member of the veterans affairs committee, think he has a good understanding of what positions have been eliminated at Veterans Affairs, what spending has been reduced as a result of the government’s deficit elimination efforts and what the expected impact of those changes will be? If so, on what basis does he have that understanding? If not, shouldn’t he?​

As he pointed out to me: Hawn has only been a member of the committee for the last year. But here are his responses, complete and unedited.

The positions to which you refer were eliminated over a long period of time, since 2008. Even though I have had a lifelong interest in veterans affairs, I have been on the Veterans Affairs committee for slightly more than one year. I do not, nor does any member of any committee, have detailed knowledge of every position in any department. That is not our job and we all have a variety of responsibilities in several areas. We trust the professional bureaucracy of departments to manage their departments through their ministers and deputy ministers. That performance gets reported on and evaluated by appearance at committee, auditor general reports, etc. We do have knowledge of programs and overall direction of departmental affairs, and are free to dig deeper as we see fit. In my case, that knowledge comes from personal interest as a veteran and one who is committed to progress on veterans issues. It also comes from my membership on the cabinet committee that was tasked with deliberating the Deficit Reduction Action Plan. In that process, Veterans Affairs took the smallest cut of any department with the exception of Aboriginal Affairs. As you should know, VAC budgets have continued to increase over the years. Any cutbacks in certain areas at Veterans Affairs were aimed squarely at reducing duplication, reduction of red tape, updating and streamlining administration services; and that’s where the vast majority of cuts were accomplished. All of this was to concentrate to the maximum extent possible on the actual delivery of services and benefits. The opposition will, of course, mislead Canadians for their own political objectives. The media will, of course, willingly participate in anything that can be construed as negative.

The opposition are misrepresenting the numbers, by cherry-picking and refusing to acknowledge the broader picture, even though I’m pretty sure that they’re smart enough to understand it. As has been pointed out in the House, there are admin services in every department within VAC and all have been targets for reduction, where it does not impact service delivery. Do we get all those 100 per cent right? Of course not; but that is not indicative of any intention to neglect our responsibilities to veterans. It is an indication of something that will always be a work in progress. Here are some of the examples of targeted cuts. In the Disability Benefit program, 12 photocopy and processing clerks were reduced when we moved to digitized medical records. In the service delivery branch, re-organization of three regional management centres into one in Montreal reduced hundreds of managers, processing analyst and administrative support clerks. In the Treatment Benefits program (which supports disability benefits and rehab programs), 30 positions were reduced when we streamlined health-related travel claims and eliminated the need to submit individual receipts to the government. In the Disability Benefit, service delivery and rehabilitation areas of the department, we reduced 24 managerial positions by reorganizing the department’s management structure. In the Veterans Independence program, we eliminated the need to submit receipts and went to an up-front payment, saving dozens of positions.

I’m pretty sure that you’ll spin all of this as negative, and I can’t control that. I can only try to be the two things I wanted to be when I started this job – honest and consistent. I have always acknowledged the legitimate challenges on veterans’ issues and have lobbied strongly and consistently for rational progress. I can also only remain disappointed at the state of politics and the media in Canada; and there is blame to go all around.

The first sentence of that third paragraph kind of hurt my feelings. (I kid. I genuinely appreciate Hawn’s response. For the record, I’m just here because I desire a meaningful debate.)

I’m told that Hawn’s information on positions that have been eliminated comes courtesy of Veterans Affairs officials. But Veterans Affairs still has not responded to my request for a full accounting of the staff reductions. (While Julian Fantino continues to claim in the House of Commons that the opposition parties have voted against specific initiatives and investments to assist veterans, his office continues to not respond to my requests to explain the minister’s claims.)

Regardless of whether or not anyone ever responds to me, staffing in a federal department does not seem the sort of thing that Parliament should be haggling over in the abstract. Shouldn’t we have a relatively straightforward basis for debate—an official explanation of which positions were eliminated and why and with what adjustments? Isn’t this what Parliament is for? Does the confusion here not suggest a systemic failure? (When I asked Liberal MP Frank Valeriote, another member of the Veterans Affairs committee, about why MPs haven’t already gotten to the bottom of this issue, he pointed to the limited time allowed for opposition MPs to question the minister at committee hearings. He also pointed, fairly, to the fact that neither the minister nor government officials appeared before the committee this fall to discuss the government’s latest request for funding. The estimates process is already insufficient. To not even bother holding a single hearing is to fail to do the absolute least you could do.)

A union official tells the Globe that the cuts at Veterans Affairs are having an impact and raises the specific issue of the caseloads that staff are carrying.

Mr. Gannon, a former front-line service provider with Veterans Affairs, said the roughly 1,000 job cuts in the department are having a dramatic impact on front-line services for veterans. Case managers should have between 35 and 41 client cases but he said many are dealing with more than 50 individual veterans’ files.

“The veterans themselves are the ones that are suffering,” he said. “We are so short-staffed right now on the front lines that it’s actually kind of disgusting when it really comes down to it.”

The Chronicle-Herald‘s Paul McLeod reported last week that he had inquired about caseloads without receiving a response from the department.

In my flipping through departmental reports earlier this week, I noticed that the department’s 2013-14 report on plans and priorities included a section on the Veterans Affairs workforce that broadly covered potential reductions, but while setting out a target for caseloads.

Along with other government of Canada departments, VAC has completed a strategic operating review, enabling it to realize savings through operational efficiencies. The department will strive to eliminate unnecessary steps and layers of bureaucracy, in order to deliver better and faster service. These reductions, combined with the department’s ongoing transformation, which began in 2010, will be managed through attrition: approximately 1,000 VAC employees (almost a third of its workforce) were or/are eligible to retire between 2010 and 2016. Other strategies will include the internal redeployment of staff resources, and workforce adjustment as necessary.

Notably, there will be no reduction in services to veterans, in particular, the department’s case management services, which provide care and support to the veterans in greatest need. VAC will continue to improve these services, while striving to balance workloads for case managers. The department will maintain a ratio of one case manager for every 40 case managed veterans.

So there is something that should be knowable: how many cases have managers been carrying over the last two years? How often have managers had more than 40 cases at a time? For that matter, is 40 cases per manager a demonstrably good ratio?

The House will adjourn for its winter break this afternoon. It is due to be adjourned for six weeks. And it would be sometime after that the Veterans Affairs committee would conceivably reconvene to pursue the questions about staffing, caseloads and mental health services that have dominated the last two weeks. As a simple measure of democratic governance, that seems rather unsatisfactory, no?

“The fact of the matter,” Julian Fantino explained, “is that the opposition has constantly voted against those measures.”

With Fantino and his department now the subject of various criticisms and controversies, accused of not doing enough or not performing sufficiently to serve those who’ve served, both the Veterans Affairs minister and the Prime Minister have fallen back on this idea that the New Democrats and Liberals have “voted against” the good deeds of the current government. (You allege we aren’t doing enough, but look at all the things we are doing that you oppose.) But if that is a fact, it is not one the government is eager to detail. Indeed, the offices of both Fantino and Harper have so far declined to respond to my repeated requests to explain precisely which votes covered the initiatives and investments the government has accused the opposition of opposing.

If the NDP and Liberal opposition in this regard amounts to a vote against a budget bill or a set of estimates, then the phrase “voted against” is being used so loosely as to be meaningless. Even if the measures in question can be tied to a reasonably focused bill or vote, we’d surely have to explore the context: Why, precisely, did the New Democrats or Liberals vote as they did, and what exactly did they object to? Probably no one in the House of Commons believes that veterans should not be provided for by the federal government at some expense to the federal treasury. And rarely is a vote in the House as simple as an absolute yes or no.

But then, to actually discuss the particulars of each vote might require some effort and the presumptions that this is a place for reasonable discussions and that the public at large would appreciate as much.

Opposite this, opposition MPs cry out about cuts.

“Now we learn that the Prime Minister’s claim about only backroom bureaucrats being laid off was false. A third of the layoffs were people working on pensions, and disability benefits,” the NDP’s David Christopherson lamented this afternoon. “For vets, it has been a decade of darkness under the Conservatives. When will Conservatives stop misleading Canadians and finally live up to their obligation to our nation’s veterans?”

“Mr. Speaker, in fact, there are back-office positions in almost every segment of Veterans Affairs, and that is what veterans have been saying that we should, in fact, reduce,” the minister explained. “A few examples: The government stopped asking veterans to show it their receipts for snow-clearing. That reduced almost 100 positions. In the disability benefit program, 12 photocopy and processing clerks were reduced when we moved to digitized medical records.”

After another question from the NDP deputy, Fantino tallied more cuts while boasting of greater “front-line” services.

“Mr. Speaker, while the opposition wants to increase government bureaucracy, we are increasing front-line support services for veterans and their families, including the recently announced eight new front-line mental health clinics for our veterans,” the minister said. “In the service-delivery branch, we are organizing three regional management centres into one in Montreal, which will reduce hundreds of managers, processing analysts and administrative support clerks. We make no apologies for finding efficiencies in a bureaucracy and translating those into active front-line services to our veterans and their families.”

All of which sounds lovely.

But if the story of the government’s cuts at Veterans Affairs is so grand—and eliminating a quarter of the positions in a department while maintaining satisfactory levels of service would be a grand achievement—then surely the department should offer a full explanation. I asked last Thursday for such a breakdown and am still waiting for that: I’ll happily post verbatim whatever I receive. The department seems similarly hesitant to explain to the Chronicle-Herald what sort of caseloads its case managers are carrying.

It seems somewhat odd that we are even haggling over staffing reductions at this late date; one might imagine that this is the sort of thing parliamentarians should have sorted through already. The most recent departmental performance reports were tabled more than a month ago, while the 2012, 2013 and 2014 reports on plans and priorities forecast reductions. But, in the fading days of 2014, we are apparently not all entirely clear on what’s going on at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mind you, the Veterans Affairs committee didn’t bother to consider the latest round of estimates of the government’s spending for the fiscal year; a meeting to do so last Wednesday never occurred. Nor has the committee commenced a study of the critical report of the auditor general, the report that initially started this last spasm of concern for goings-on at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

With the House due to adjourn for the winter break at the end of this week, no further business is currently scheduled for the Veterans Affairs committee. And it’s possible it won’t begin to study anything again until the last week of January. But it is tempting here to behold the current concerns and wonder if a few days of committee hearings couldn’t possibly bring us some amount of clarity. What positions have been eliminated? Have positions and staff been eliminated without great impact to the delivery or administration of services? The most recent departmental performance reports have Veterans Affairs meeting or exceeding the vast majority of its goal. Does that suggest good management? Or would critics quibble with the department’s goals? How, in all, will the government respond to the auditor general’s report? And would the opposition parties reverse the government’s staffing cuts?

In the absence of such stuff, each side, supported by facts without context, can only claim their own righteous indignation.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-morass-of-the-veterans-affairs-controversy/feed/6NDP, Liberals demand Fantino resign from Veterans Affairs portfoliohttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ndp-liberals-demand-fantino-resign-from-veterans-affairs-portfolio/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ndp-liberals-demand-fantino-resign-from-veterans-affairs-portfolio/#commentsTue, 02 Dec 2014 15:37:36 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=646571How much of a political liability the veterans affairs minister may be for the Conservative government remains to be seen

OTTAWA – Julian Fantino was greeted Monday in the House of Commons by opposition demands that he step down — but how much of a political liability the veterans affairs minister may be for the Conservative government remains to be seen.

Smelling blood in the water, the third-party Liberals have launched slick online ads to capitalize on the outrage that followed the auditor general’s critical assessment of how Veterans Affairs has been treating mentally ill ex-soldiers.

One such ad, which features the ex-soldier who successfully fought the government over disability pension clawbacks, says: “Veterans fought for us. They shouldn’t have to fight their own government.”

Both the opposition New Democrats and the Liberals piled on during question period Monday — Fantino’s first since auditor general Michael Ferguson tore a strip off the government for making soldiers with post-traumatic stress wait up to eight months to find out if they’re eligible for treatment.

Fantino, who was in Italy last week attending commemorative Second World War events while controversy raged at home, brushed aside the criticism.

Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair called Fantino’s recent absence from the Commons an act of “cowardice,” and wondered aloud why he continues to have the confidence of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“He showed dereliction of duty by fleeing the country,” Mulcair said during question period. “Will the minister — for once — do the honourable thing and resign?”

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale was more blunt, saying Fantino has lost not only the confidence of the opposition parties, but former soldiers and the Canadian public as well.

“There is no trust or credibility left; will the minister simply stop the travesty and resign?” said Goodale, who later urged Harper to “fire this failed minister.”

Through it all, Fantino stuck to his question period notes and rattled off a laundry list of steps the government has recently taken to improve mental health benefits and access to services for ill and injured soldiers.

“While the opposition resorts to exploiting veterans, fear-mongering and mud-slinging, we on this side of the House are continuing to make real, tangible improvements,” he said.

Those improvements, however — announced in the run-up to Ferguson’s scathing report — are now under the microscope.

On Nov. 23, just days before the report’s release, a parade of federal cabinet ministers unveiled $200 million in new money to improve access for veterans, open additional operational stress injury clinics and enhance research and training.

Background information provided during the announcement said there would be an up-front investment of $18 million in the clinics, with a further $152 million to flow throughout the lifetime of the program.

A published report last week said it could take up to 50 years for that money to be distributed, since veterans in their early 20s will require services for the rest of their lives. Some of the cash, earmarked for additional counsellors and mental health first aid, will be spent over five years.

Under repeated questioning in the Commons on Monday, Fantino refused to clarify the numbers, which both opposition parties said had been fudged to make the government look good with an impressive dollar figure.

The Conservatives earned similar criticism a few years back when they announced $2 billion in improvements to their new veterans charter without saying it would be portioned out over several decades.

More recently, the revelation that $1.13 billion in budgeted funds went unspent at Veterans Affairs over nearly eight years has been dogging the government for weeks.

The Conservatives say they’ve poured an extra $5 billion — over and above what the Liberals were planning to spend — into veterans programs, but don’t point out that some of that cash ended up as “lapsed funding” that went back to the federal treasury.

Meanwhile, Fantino is getting a new chief of staff.

Stephen Lecce from the Prime Minister’s Office will act as Fantino’s interim chief of staff while staying on at PMO.

For a brief moment, Julian Fantino seemed to eschew a script. Accused by the NDP leader of cowardly fleeing the country, the veterans affairs minister seemed to want to make something of his chance to explain why he’d been in Italy last week and not, in the immediate hours after the auditor general’s report, standing in the House to account for his department.

“I attended a very moving commemoration in Italy involving the soldiers who were there during the war. I saw them visit the graves of their comrades in the various cemeteries and I am very proud of having done that,” he said. “In my world, ‘lest we forget’ means something.”

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair was not much impressed with this. “Mr. Speaker, how about showing up for work and taking care of them when they are alive?” Mulcair shot back.

The Conservatives howled. Once more, the NDP leader called out “cowardice” and, with that, the Speaker was compelled to intervene. “I think the word ‘cowardice’ does not contribute to the debate on this subject and, instead, causes disorder,” Speaker Scheer advised, returning the floor to Mulcair, who, while avoiding the c-word, still accused the minister of hiding behind those who serve.

The NDP leader wondered if the Prime Minister still trusted Fantino, but the Prime Minister was taking his usual Monday break from the House, so the minister stood and read into the record various assurances about his department’s efforts to assist the mental health of veterans.

Finally, Mulcair got to the question his complaints had been building to. “Will the minister, for once, do the honourable thing,” he asked, “and resign?”

A few moments later, Liberal MP Ralph Goodale added the third party’s seconding of that sentiment. “There is no trust or credibility left,” he said. “Will the minister simply stop the travesty and resign?”

Opposite all this and the denunciations of the opposition, the minister mostly stood in the House with all the verve of drying cement and read from pieces of paper placed on his desk.

The easiest explanation for why the Prime Minister should find a new veterans affairs minister is that certain lack of verve. But this is to reduce ministers of the crown to TV pitchmen. Maybe that’s primarily what they are these days; most everything the government does seems to be the doing of the Prime Minister. We are possibly due a discussion about what it is these people do, aside from participating in these semi-dramatic public readings each afternoon. Can Fantino be held directly responsible for any of his department’s problems, or is it just that there is some critical mass of problems, or is it that he hasn’t been able to sufficiently manage the reaction to the problems? Would a better minister have somehow better parried the criticism? Ask yourself: WWJKD? (What Would Jason Kenney Do?)

Earnestly, it might be to wonder why the veterans affairs minister would be dumped while, say, the environment minister, still without regulations for the oil and gas sector, would remain. Except, of course, that the environment minister is only not doing what the government doesn’t want to do. As long as you can operate within political calculations without embarrassing the government, you are basically safe.

More cynically, would dumping the minister serve or hurt the Prime Minister’s cause? Could it possibly mark a useful response to the current situation, or would it only confirm that there was a reason for the minister to resign?

Mulcair would ask reporters afterward to note how “parsimonious” he has been in playing the resignation card (this might only be the third time he has done so since becoming leader of the Opposition) and there is surely an art to knowing when to hit a wobbly minister with it. Well-played, it is at least an easy winner of headlines and a handy signal to casual viewers that someone has done something worth resigning about.

In some fantasy-baseball parlour game, you might imagine a cuddlier minister put in charge with some mandate to reach out fully and do whatever is necessary—likely at some cost to the federal treasury—to placate the concerns of veterans. But maybe that would set a bad precedent for the next minister who finds his portfolio attacked.

So, probably tomorrow, the Prime Minister will show up to offer some resounding defence of his government and his minister and the Conservatives benches will leap up to applaud. And then, if the government is truly worried about what Fantino might mean for next year’s vote, maybe there’s a new minister before next spring.

In the meantime, opposition MPs can at least entertain themselves with little tests of the minister.

Later in this afternoon’s session, the Liberals sent up Marc Garneau with an oddly simple question.

“Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of veterans affairs,” Garneau explained. “Is the program that the government announced last week for $200 million over six years or over 50 years?”

The minister might have offered a simple answer. Or he might have at least pointed in the general direction of a straightforward response. Instead, he went with this.

“Mr. Speaker, we have announced new initiatives designed to support Canadian Armed Forces personnel, Canadian veterans and their families regarding their mental health needs. For example, major new operational stress injury clinics will be opened in Halifax, along with additional satellite clinics in St. John’s, Chicoutimi, Pembroke, Brockville, Kelowna, Victoria, Montreal, and an expanded clinic in Toronto.”

In his seat across the way, Garneau listened, then laughed.

Awhile after that, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May stood for her weekly opportunity, having apparently decided to see how committed the minister was to not answering.

“Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question that was just asked by the honourable member for Westmount-Ville-Marie to the minister of veterans affairs. It was a really clear question,” she explained from the back corner. “Will the minister of veterans affairs tell us whether the $200 million is to be spent over six years or 50 years?’

She wagged her finger. “If the minister respects our veterans,” she said, “he will give a clear answer.” The Liberal benches applauded her.

Here, the minister came vaguely closer to directly responding.

“Mr. Speaker, I believe that our veterans and their families deserve the very best care possible,” he said. “Our Conservative government will always ensure that veterans’ mental health support is available to them today, tomorrow and for the rest of their lives. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise. This government has announced and is delivering on priorities for our veterans by moving forward with opening eight new specialized mental health facilities next year and other mental health assistance and support for them and their families.”

Presuming he is still the minister tomorrow, Fantino might at least plan to arrive to the House with something snappier to say.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/should-julian-fantino-be-fired-no-how-bout-now/feed/5Tories seek to mend fences with some, but not all, veterans groupshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/tories-seek-to-mend-fences-with-some-but-not-all-veterans-groups/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/tories-seek-to-mend-fences-with-some-but-not-all-veterans-groups/#commentsWed, 19 Nov 2014 10:47:43 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=641259Veterans Affairs will meet with veterans groups on Wednesday in Quebec City, but several veterans organizations have been excluded

OTTAWA – Veterans Affairs is embarking Wednesday on an effort to rebuild bridges with groups that represent disgruntled ex-soldiers, but it is excluding some organizations that have threatened to campaign against the governing Conservatives.

It will be the first time in months that embattled Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino has faced the regular gathering of interested groups.

The meeting is taking place in Quebec City – not Ottawa, as per usual – at a time when several Conservative sources are acknowledging their party’s problematic relationship with Canadian military veterans.

Several groups opposed to the government’s so-called new veterans charter, which defines the benefits and entitlements of ex-military and RCMP members, have formed a coalition and are refusing to participate in government photo-ops until their concerns are addressed.

Some in the coalition, notably Cape Breton veteran Ron Clarke, say they will be actively campaigning to oust the Conservatives.

The declaration has effectively split the veterans movement.

Don Leonardo, the head of Veterans Canada, says his group has decided not to participate in the coalition, and yet it has still been excluded from the Quebec City meeting.

In the past, Leonardo has been one of the few disabled veterans at the table. The consultations were a chance for injured vets, those most directly affected by the charter, to have direct face time with the minister, he said.

Leonardo said he doesn’t expect any disabled veterans to be on hand Wednesday, just interest groups.

“They’re controlling the message,” he said of the Conservatives. “How do you control the message in an election year? Get rid of the people who’ve been the loudest. Don’t give them a soapbox to stand on.”

When asked why certain groups were being excluded from the meeting, Fantino’s spokeswoman, Ashlee Smith, did not answer directly.

“Minister Fantino will be at the stakeholder meeting (Wednesday) and looks forward to meeting with veterans, veterans stakeholders and experts in the continued efforts to improve veterans benefits and programs,” she said in an email.

Mike Blais of the group Canadian Veterans Advocacy, one of the most vocal critics of the government’s handling of the benefits issue, accused the government of playing politics by shutting out its most vocal critics.

“They don’t want to hear from anybody other than the ones who brought you the new veterans charter,” he said.

Regardless, it’s clear that what might have been reliable support for the Conservatives in next year’s federal election is instead morphing into a possible liability, bringing with it the risk of that dissent bubbling up in a very public, high-profile way in the middle of a campaign.

Multiple Conservative sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, say there is growing frustration within the party at Fantino’s inability to forge positive relationships with veterans – a strength of his predecessor, Steven Blaney.

Fantino was also at the centre of two televised incidents in the past year that made him appear less than sympathetic to the plight of the wounded and their families.

Last winter, he had a testy exchange with angry ex-soldiers on Parliament Hill. The following spring, cameras recorded the minister walking away from an angry military wife as she urged him to stop and acknowledge her.

The Conservatives recently moved well-known former general Walt Natynczyk into the department’s deputy minister post, a move seen by many observers as an attempt at damage control.

Observers say Natynczyk, a former chief of the defence staff, has stature among ex-soldiers and experience dealing with the impact of the war in Afghanistan that could ease the bitterness some veterans – particularly the wounded – might be feeling towards the government.

OTTAWA — A new report by Canada’s veterans watchdog says nearly half of the country’s most severely disabled ex-soldiers are not receiving a government allowance intended to compensate them for their physical and mental wounds.

Veterans ombudsman Guy Parent also concluded that those who are receiving the permanent impairment allowance, along with a recently introduced supplement, are only awarded the lowest grade of the benefit.

The criteria used by federal bureaucrats to evaluate disability do not match the intent of the allowance, and the guidelines are too restrictive, the report said.

It doesn’t make sense to set aside cash to deal with a problem and then not spend it, Parent said. “You can flood programs with money, but of you don’t broaden the access, then you haven’t accomplished anything.”

It’s a pattern with the current government, he said, noting how the Conservatives poured funding into the burial program for impoverished ex-soldiers in 2013, but took a year to ease the eligibility criteria so people could actually qualify.

“The evidence presented in the report clearly demonstrates that many severely impaired veterans are either not receiving these benefits or may be receiving them at a grade level that is too low,” the ombudsman said.

“This is unfair and needs to be corrected.”

Investigators could find no evidence that Veterans Affairs adjudicators consider the effect of an enduring injury on an individual’s long-term employment and career prospects, he added.

In a statement, Veteran Affairs Minister Julian Fantino said the findings of the ombudsman’s latest report will be considered as the government prepares its response to a Commons committee review, which has recommended a series of improvements to the legislation governing veterans benefits.

“I have asked officials at Veterans Affairs to ensure that they consider the recommendations found in the veterans ombudsman’s PIA report as well as consult his office in the development of solutions to improve the New Veterans Charter,” Fantino said.

In defending itself against criticism that veterans are being short-changed, the Harper government has been quick to point to the allowance and the supplement as a sign of its generosity.

Fantino told a House of Commons committee last spring that some permanently disabled soldiers receive more than $10,000 per month, but figures from his own department show that only four individuals in the entire country receive that much.

The department went a step further and released a chart at the end of July that shows the maximum benefits soldiers of different ranks could qualify for under existing legislation — a “misleading” display that could raise “false expectations” among veterans, Parent said.

The latest report also noted that when a veteran dies, the spouse automatically loses the allowance, creating financial hardship for the family. Under the old Pension Act system, the widow or widower continued to receive support.

The permanent impairment allowance is a taxable benefit awarded to disabled soldiers in three grade levels as compensation for lost future earnings. The Harper government introduced a supplement to the allowance in 2011.

In some respects, that supplement contributed to a dramatic increase in the number of applications.

According to figures released by Veterans Affairs in June, some 521 ex-soldiers are deemed to be the most critically injured, but the vast majority of them — 92 per cent — receive the lowest grade of allowance support.

The ombudsman’s report estimates Canada has a total of 1,911 severely wounded soldiers, 924 of whom receive no allowance at all.

Ron Cundell, of the web site VeteranVoice.info, said the latest review doesn’t tell ex-soldiers anything they don’t know already.

“It’s a shame,” Cundell said. “The (office of the veterans ombudsman) reports are proving what the veteran community has known for a long time. Veterans Affairs is not treating veterans fairly.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/half-of-badly-wounded-soldiers-not-getting-disability-cheque-watchdog/feed/1Disabled RCMP and military vets are in courthttp://www.macleans.ca/news/need-to-know/disabled-rcmp-and-military-vets-are-in-court/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/need-to-know/disabled-rcmp-and-military-vets-are-in-court/#commentsFri, 20 Jun 2014 12:42:38 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=571925They hope to have settlements on disability clawbacks approved

HALIFAX – A group of disabled RCMP veterans are anxiously awaiting a decision on a multimillion-dollar class-action settlement, the lead plaintiff said Friday as a Federal Court judge reserved his decision in the case and another involving military veterans with disabilities.

Lawyers for the veterans and the federal government were in court in Halifax seeking the approval of settlements worth $70 million for disabled RCMP officers and $38.6 million for military veterans.

The RCMP case involves officers whose long-term disability payments were cut by the same amount they received in monthly disability pension payments through Veterans Affairs.

David White, the lead plaintiff in the RCMP class-action, said the roughly 1,000 retired Mounties with disabilities who would be covered by their agreement are supportive of the deal and are eager to close the case.

“If the proposed settlement agreement is approved, it’s going to be a great day for our disabled RCMP veterans,” White said outside court. “When they receive this income, it’s going to make a huge difference.”

The case was launched in 2008 by Gerard Buote, but was taken over by White after Buote died from cancer the following year.

The benefits of the agreement would extend beyond the members of the class-action, said White.

He said the $70-million agreement would mean that the clawback would end for all RCMP veterans now receiving benefits and Mounties who are medically released in the future.

“Serving members won’t be subject to the clawback like I was,” said White. “It’s been awhile, but we’re really pleased and hopefully we’ll get the judge’s decision before too long.”

Dan Wallace, one of White’s lawyer, said members would receive a lump sum within six months of the judge’s order of the settlement for retroactive payments. Going forward, they would see their monthly benefits increase, he said.

The $38.6-million settlement in the lawsuit involving military veterans was reached on the cost of living provisions with veterans who were awarded an $887.8-million settlement last year.

At issue in that case was a long-standing federal practice of clawing back the military pensions of injured soldiers by the amount of disability payments they received.

Peter Driscoll, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case, said his team found what they determined to be a miscalculation in the way the federal government determined the cost of living allowance for military veterans.

It wasn’t included as part of the original settlement because there wasn’t enough time and the two sides agreed to deal with it at a later date so it didn’t hold up the process, another lawyer said in court.

Dennis Manuge, the lead plaintiff, said the approval of the settlement will be the final step for members in putting the case behind them.

“It’s been resolved reasonably and fairly,” Manuge said outside court. “It’s been stressful at times, frustrating at times, but it’s very rewarding today. For me personally, I feel like I have the weight of the world off of my shoulders.”

The original class-action involved 8,000 people, but the 38.6-million settlement includes another 6,000 veterans who were not subject to a wrongful offset of their benefits, but whose cost of living allowances were also miscalculated, said Driscoll.

Driscoll said the payments would begin in January 2015 and would be paid out over a year.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/need-to-know/disabled-rcmp-and-military-vets-are-in-court/feed/0QP Live: The government lost a veteran’s votehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/qp-live-the-government-lost-a-veterans-vote/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/qp-live-the-government-lost-a-veterans-vote/#commentsMon, 03 Feb 2014 17:32:47 +0000Nick Taylor-Vaiseyhttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=504871Join us for your daily dose of political theatre. Tweet about the madness at #QP.

Julian Fantino spent much of last week fending off consistent calls for his sacking. He countered opposition claims that the government is letting down veterans. He was happy for the weekend, probably. He didn’t want to see these words in the Ottawa Citizen this morning.

A recently retired Canadian soldier and national veterans’ advocate has quit the Conservative party over what he says is the federal government’s lack of respect and “spectre of indifference” towards veterans.

Few lost votes sting as much as that one. Paul Wells explained why on the most recent Maclean’spolitics podcast. “If there’s anyone likely to be a Conservative voter, it’s an old guy who used to be in the army,” he said, adding a note of caution. “This government can’t get too frequently in the habit of taking its client groups for granted.”

But there’s retired Sgt. Major Barry Westholm, profiled in the Citizen, feeling taken for granted. His words hurt two-fold: he’s a lost vote that used to be a guarantee, and his criticism will single-handedly fuel opposition fury in the Commons. The government could put on a brave face and deny they’ve mistreated anybody, or they could unleash a heck of a mea culpa. You guess which route they’ll choose.

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period, when MPs trade barbs and take names for 45 minutes every day. If you’ve never watched, check out our primer, which we produced with J-Source. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3. We tell you who to watch, we stream it live, and we liveblog all the action. The whole thing only matters if you participate. Chime in on Twitter with #QP.

HOT SEAT

Few things will, for now, interrupt the opposition’s attacks on veterans affairs minister Julian Fantino. Will the NDP and Liberals take a new tack? Will they stick to the same pointed questions? No matter the queries, Fantino’s response will likely remain the same—that is, deflection and denial of any mistreatment of vets.

THE STREAM

THE BLOG

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/qp-live-the-government-lost-a-veterans-vote/feed/7This week in QP: Fantino and veterans, Trudeau and the Senatehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/this-week-in-qp-fantino-and-veterans-trudeau-and-the-senate/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/this-week-in-qp-fantino-and-veterans-trudeau-and-the-senate/#commentsFri, 31 Jan 2014 19:31:33 +0000Nick Taylor-Vaiseyhttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=504327The House's first week back from a winter break was raucous

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/this-week-in-qp-fantino-and-veterans-trudeau-and-the-senate/feed/5Tories had to act on military suicideshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/503585/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/503585/#commentsFri, 31 Jan 2014 14:16:20 +0000Nick Taylor-Vaiseyhttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=503585Rob Nicholson asked the military to expedite investigations

“There’s no excuse for a backlog of 75.” —David Desjardins, a former military police officer who served in Afghanistan

Ottawa Conservatives are convinced they are getting it right on the veterans’ affairs file. They’ve taken wave after wave of criticism. They decided to shutter nine veterans’ affairs offices across Canada, and farm out the services to existing Service Canada offices. Meanwhile, a combination of cost cutting and red tape meant that the feds weren’t hiring enough mental-health workers for the military caseload. And then, on top of it all, a new military suicide seemed to make headlines every week for the past two months.

Throughout, the government’s talking points have remained remarkably intact. They’re enhancing access to services by closing sparsely used offices, they say. They’re saddened by suicides, but repeat ad nauseum that Canada offers some of the best help in the world to current and former soldiers who suffer mental illness. The NDP won’t have any of it, and they spent much of this week’s Question Period hammering the government on the vets’ file.

Eventually, the government pivoted ever so slightly. Yesterday, as the House debated an NDP motion to address the mental-health crisis among veterans, Defence Minister Rob Nicholson effusively praised the work of the Canadian Armed Forces and detailed all of the mental-health services offered to members. It sounded like boilerplate, mostly. Then, a few minutes later, Nicholson changed tack. Cheryl Gallant, the Tory MP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Ont., asked the defence minister to comment on “outstanding boards of inquiry” into military suicides, of which the NDP counted over 50 in its motion.

Nicholson rose and offered a little bit of news. “I have expressed my serious concerns to the chain of command with respect to the delay of these reports,” he said. “I have asked the Canadian Armed Forces to make their completion a priority.”

Evidently, the military responded, with orders right from the top. “Chief of the Defence Staff [Tom Lawson] has recently directed a dedicated team to be convened to close outstanding boards of inquiry as quickly as possible,” Nicholson told the House.

The Globe and Mail reports that 75 suicide investigations are currently ongoing. The Globe quotes David Desjardins, a former military police officer who served in Afghanistan, as saying the move to close the investigations is “too little, too late” and inordinately hard on the families involved. Perhaps that is so. But for a government so protective of its own agenda, even admitting something was wrong—and had been for some time, as investigations piled up—was a big move. Something had to give. The Tories’ worst nightmare, after all, is to be outflanked by the NDP on veterans’ issues.

ABOVE THE FOLD

Globe: Ontario’s increasing its minimum wage to a nation-leading $11 an hour.

Tom Mulcair and Julian Fantino disagree about some basic facts. Today, the NDP Leader stood in the House of Commons and, facing the Conservative side, informed his colleagues that a road trip from Corner Brook, NL, to St. John’s would last about eight hours. The government is closing a veterans’ affairs service office in Corner Brook. Mulcair was, apparently, inferring that veterans would face a 16-hour round trip in order to access the services they require.

Part of Fantino’s defence of the service centre closures has always been that veterans can receive the same care at Service Canada locations, of which there are more than 600. Mulcair didn’t seem to know that Service Canada maintains an office in Corner Brook. Agree or disagree about the value of service under the new arrangement, but don’t deny the existence of a real-life office.

Mulcair also claimed, by way of a leading question, that house calls for vulnerable vets—another plank of Fantino’s defence—won’t be as plentiful as promised. Perhaps the NDP Leader knows something Fantino doesn’t, but that didn’t stop the veterans affairs minister from insisting that such house calls are part of the government plan.

Disagreement about basic facts has never dissuaded parliamentarians from arguing, and there seems no end in sight to this particular squabble—even if the underlying arguments are, at times, based on imaginary premises.

The dispute—between veterans, one of the major public sector unions and the federal government—over the planned closure of several Veterans Affairs offices and the future delivery of services to veterans has been building for some time, but now the news networks have video of Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino in a rather contentious meeting with several unimpressed veterans.

Here is what the CBC aired and here is what CTV has shown. And now Thomas Mulcair wants Mr. Fantino to remove himself (or be removed) from cabinet.

Whatever the merits of each side’s argument (and setting aside the issues around the scheduling of this meeting and a debate we might have about what amount and kind of pointing a cabinet minister should have to accept) it’s at least interesting to see a politician captured on film in such a relatively unregulated encounter with the public. I’m reminded of Conservative MP David Wilks’ semi-famous encounter with constituents in May 2012. The most interesting moment of Justin Trudeau’s leadership so far (at least before this morning) might’ve been this exchange with a woman last September.

How often does this even happen any more? Possibly not enough. For four years after the Liberals formed government in 1993, the CBC broadcast an annual town hall meeting with Jean Chretien, during which Canadians could put questions to the Prime Minister. He had a bit of a rough go in 1996 and the exercise was never again repeated, but it’d be lovely to see it brought back.

Update 1:42pm. Mr. Fantino’s office has now sent out a statement from the minister.

“Yesterday, due to Cabinet meeting that ran long, I was very late in meeting a group of Veterans that had come to Ottawa to discuss their concerns. I sincerely apologize for how this was handled. Today, I am reaching out to those Veterans to reiterate that apology personally.

“I have been committed to having an open dialogue with the men and women who served Canada in uniform, but I realize that yesterday’s regrettable delay has brought that into question. Veterans across Canada should know that I remain deeply committed to meeting with them and listening to the issues that matter to them and their families, and to continue to do what’s right to support those who have stood up for Canada. Our country’s Veterans deserve no less.”

OTTAWA – Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino appeared to add insult to injury late Tuesday in firmly rejecting the pleas of ex-soldiers to halt the impending closure of eight of the department’s regional offices.

A scheduled meeting with a delegation of veterans, at least one from the Second World War, was abruptly cancelled and the group met with senior Conservatives, including MP Laurie Hawn and the minister’s chief of staff.

Just before veterans were set to hold a late evening news conference, Fantino met with them in a basement office on Parliament Hill to reinforce the message that the centres would close on schedule.

“The decision has been made,” Fantino said before leaving for another meeting. “We have found alternate accommodations that we feel will adequately address veterans and their needs.”

Centres — in Kelowna, B.C., Saskatoon, Brandon, Man., Thunder Bay, Ont., Windsor, Ont., Sydney, N.S., Charlottetown and Corner Brook, N.L. — are slated to shut down Friday as part of a move to more online and remote services. A ninth office has already closed in Prince George, B.C.

One veteran, Ron Clarke, said the minister’s brusk and disrespectful treatment has succeeded in alienating him from a core Conservative constituency, and he urged ex-soldiers to take out their frustration at the ballot box in 2015.

“I would like to call for Mr. Fantino’s resignation — or firing,” Clarke said. “Mr. Harper and his Conservatives had best be prepared for the next election. There are two (other) parties who said they’d open our offices, and (soldiers) might want to think about voting for them, but not the Conservatives.”

Seven veterans, including Roy Lamore whose service dates back to the 1940s, says he and others feel betrayed by a government that promised to take care of them and younger soldiers.

“These closures will put veterans at risk,” Lamore, a resident of Thunder Bay, told a Parliament Hill news conference. “I hope the government is listening. Why do we, as veterans, have to beg?”

But earlier in the day during question period in the House of Commons, the prime minister brushed aside the criticism and noted that veterans can still get everything they need from the less specialized 584 Service Canada offices coast-to-coast.

With the declining veterans population, Stephen Harper suggested, the Second War World-era structure had out lived its purpose.

“There are a small number of service centres that are being closed that frankly service very few people, had very few visits,” Harper told the House of Commons.

“That’s being replaced with 600 service centres across the country, and in an increased number of cases employees will actually go and meet veterans instead of the other way around.”

Harper also pointed to increased investments the Conservatives have made under the New Veterans Charter.

NDP Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair linked the imminent cuts to the increasing number of soldiers and ex-soldiers who’ve taken their lives since the fall.

“When our forces are facing a crisis of eight military suicides in two months, there’s never been a more important time to maintain those services,” Mulcair said.

Former corporal Bruce Moncur, who was wounded in Afghanistan in 2006, says the online system has increased frustration even among his Internet-savvy friends seeking benefits and treatment.

Filling out forms and navigating the department’s bureaucratic maze has taken him up to a week, he said, when just one office visit would have sorted it out in a morning.

Moncur, who suffered a shrapnel wound to the head, says he believes it’s a deliberate strategy to reduce use of services.

“When you keep getting the door slammed in your face, you just end up giving up,” he said. “It’s the no-go policy. If you’re told ‘No’ enough times, you’ll go away.”

Following the meeting, Moncur pleaded with veterans to not be discouraged and file for the benefits to which they are entitled.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents Veterans Affairs staff, has been running a high-profile campaign against the closures. One of the frontline workers, Michelle Bradley, said she feels defeated and ashamed because veterans will no longer get the personal service they deserve.

The union says the specialized knowledge of veterans staff cannot be replicated at Service Canada centres, where the public applies for employment insurance and even social insurance numbers.

The inability to access services, particularly mental health, could have dire consequences, other veterans warned.

One ex-soldier at the news conference soberly recounted the struggle of a comrade, who took his own life years after being wounded in Cyprus.

The Harper government plans a series of commemorations this year to mark the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in France, as well as the centennial of the start of the First World War.

“It’s really convenient to show yourself in such a commemorative way, except services are required,” said Moncur. “I think the money would be better spent to help veterans that need the help.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/julian-fantino-confirms-eight-veterans-centres-will-close-the-decision-has-been-made/feed/7Plan to give injured vets priority for federal jobs faces bottleneck: ombudsmanhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/plan-to-give-injured-vets-priority-for-federal-jobs-faces-bottleneck-ombudsman/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/plan-to-give-injured-vets-priority-for-federal-jobs-faces-bottleneck-ombudsman/#commentsMon, 18 Nov 2013 22:24:16 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=441733OTTAWA – The Harper government’s plan to bump injured ex-soldiers to the head of the federal job line could backfire and create a bottleneck for the very people it’s trying…

OTTAWA – The Harper government’s plan to bump injured ex-soldiers to the head of the federal job line could backfire and create a bottleneck for the very people it’s trying to help, says the veterans ombudsman.

Bill C-11 requires veterans’ cases to be adjudicated to determine whether the injury is related to service before they’re given statutory priority for jobs in the public service, Guy Parent said in an online blog.

“This could add additional red tape to the release process and potentially delay the ability to access priority hiring upon release,” Parent wrote.

The proposed legislation says a veteran will qualify to go to the front of the line only if the disability was the result of service. Those medically released for non-service-related reasons will not get priority.

There are other uncertainties, including whether National Defence or Veterans Affairs will do the adjudication, what documents will be used, and how long it will take, the ombudsman said.

He says the idea of veterans getting faster access to federal jobs “encouraging.”

The bill was introduced two weeks ago when the Conservatives faced rising public criticism over a growing number of wounded soldiers discharged before they have the 10 years service that gives them a pension.

Parent said the proposed legislation will create separate classes of veterans for federal priority hiring, a situation many in government and the veterans community have been striving to avoid.

“I believe that all medically releasing Canadian Armed Forces members should be treated the same way,” he wrote.

The notion that there is just one veteran, regardless of when they served and their circumstances, was at the heart of the rewrite of benefits for ex-soldiers in 2006 under the New Veterans Charter.

“However, the proposed legislation does not follow this approach,” Parent said.

“By elevating the priority for service-related medical releases, but not for non-service-related ones, it creates separate classes of veterans for priority hiring which will add an additional layer of complexity to an already overburdened system.”

A spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino said details of how the legislation will unfold are still subject to debate.

“The operational changes and improvements that would flow from this newly tabled legislation are currently being finalized by Veterans Affairs Canada and the Public Service Commission, and every effort is being made to ensure veterans have quick and efficient access once implemented,” said Joshua Zanin.

Cutting red tape for ex-service members has been an aim of the Conservatives, and Zanin says the legislation “complements” the government’s existing efforts.

Federal budget documents show 496 veterans were on the public-service priority hiring list in 2011-12, of which 158 were appointed to federal jobs.

Soldiers let go for medical reasons have had a leg-up on federal jobs since 2005, but there was no guarantee in law. In addition, they could only take jobs turned down by other federal employees.

The new legislation applies to soldiers released on or after April 1, 2012, and extends the amount of time they have to apply for federal jobs to five years from two years under the current system.

The union representing defence workers described the bill as a knee-jerk reaction and warned that government should take care of its laid off and displaced civilians first.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/plan-to-give-injured-vets-priority-for-federal-jobs-faces-bottleneck-ombudsman/feed/1Wounded ex-soldiers to be first in line for federal government jobshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/wounded-ex-soldiers-to-be-first-in-line-for-federal-government-jobs/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/wounded-ex-soldiers-to-be-first-in-line-for-federal-government-jobs/#commentsThu, 07 Nov 2013 21:49:08 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=438988OTTAWA – The Harper government has tabled legislation to ensure soldiers released from the military for medical reasons get priority for other federal jobs.
It’s a move one national union…

OTTAWA – The Harper government has tabled legislation to ensure soldiers released from the military for medical reasons get priority for other federal jobs.

It’s a move one national union says is meant to take the sting from accusations that troops are being dumped before they can qualify for pensions.

Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino says when the law is enacted, it will move qualified veterans to the front of the line, ahead of civil servants displaced or laid-off by a cascading series of budget cuts.

“They have to be qualified for those jobs,” Fantino said in an interview with The Canadian Press. “We’re talking about qualified people, in the circumstances that they are medically released, having a priority, absolutely.”

Soldiers let go for medical reasons have had access to federal jobs since 2005, but there was no guarantee in law and they could only take jobs turned down by other federal employees.

“We’re trying to work this so that veterans truly will have a much smoother transition into jobs, not only into governments jobs” but private sector, said Fantino.

The Conservatives, who make much of their support for vets, have been under fire recently about the increasing number of wounded soldiers discharged before they have the 10 years service that gives them a pension.

Fantino wasn’t able to say whether those soldiers will be able to transfer their accumulated military pensionable into the federal civil service, and described the new initiative as “just one more helping hand.”

But the union representing approximately 14,000 defence workers said the new legislation looks more like a “knee-jerk reaction” to a political fire that needed to be put out.

John MacLennan, president of the Union of National Defence Employees, said he supports integrating veterans, but it should not be done at the expense of civilian employees who’ve already been dislocated.

“They should take care of their existing workforce,” he said.

Just how many jobs would be available to former soldiers is a matter of debate given the Harper government intends to cut as many as 19,000 jobs from the federal payroll, said MacLennan, whose union is an arm of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

“We have outside contractors filling a number of our jobs,” he said. “There is certainly enough work for both our members and veterans if the government is committed.”

National Defence would be a logical employer for many ex-service members but it, like the rest of the federal civil service, is in upheaval and transition, said MacLennan.

The Harper government recently announced as many as 4,800 military and civilian staff at National Defence could find themselves doing other work, training for new positions or perhaps even out of a job over the next four or five years.

It’s part of a so-called defence renewal strategy.

But Fantino also underscored efforts of Conservatives to convince corporate Canada to employ veterans.

Annually, about 250 ex-soldiers fall into the category of not qualifying for a Canadian Forces pension. That is out of approximately 1,500 to 1,700 who face medical release each year.

The new legislation applies to soldiers released on or after April 1, 2012, and extends the amount of time they have to apply for federal from jobs to five years from two years under the current system.

The troops, some of them missing limbs and mentally scared from their service in the Afghan war, are being let go under the military’s universality of service rule, which requires all members to be physically and mentally fit to deploy at a moment’s notice.

The bill arrived as the opposition NDP renewed the attack in the House of Commons on Thursday over the release policy.

The premiers of B.C. and Alberta finally agreed on a pipeline deal (Jonathan Hayward/CP)

Good News

A very quiet revolution

Another week, another sign that something historic is unfolding in Iran. After inviting the head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog for a visit—a potential breakthrough in a decade-long standoff over Tehran’s atomic ambitions—Iran’s UN ambassador called for the worldwide elimination of “inhuman” nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Culture Minister Ali Jannati said he supports the free civilian use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Actions, of course, speak louder than words. But the mere suggestion that Iranians deserve free speech is a monumental step.

Endless space

India launched its first spacecraft to Mars, and if its unmanned Mangalyaan orbiter manages to reach the red planet—a gruelling 300-day journey—it will become just the fourth to arrive (after the U.S., Russia and Europe). Which is great news, because, if humans ever hope to discover life beyond Earth, there is a lot of ground to cover. A new study says our galaxy is filled with billions of potentially habitable planets that exist in the so-called “Goldilocks zone”—just the right temperature for life. The biggest question still remains: Have any of those distant planets discovered us?

Female notes

Handed a petition with 22,000 signatures (including from the likes of Margaret Atwood and Kim Cattrall), Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz said he is “absolutely open” to having a homegrown female face on Canadian money. Since 2011, when the “Famous Five” (who pushed to have women legally recognized as people) were replaced on the $50 bill by an icebreaker, there have been no recognizable Canadian women on our cash. And no, the Queen doesn’t count.

Treasure trove

Hundreds of modern art masterpieces that disappeared during the Second World War have been found in a rundown Munich apartment. The haul, which includes works by Picasso, Matisse and Chagall, was discovered in 2011, but authorities kept it quiet as they tried to authenticate the works and trace ownership. By some estimates, the paintings are valued at $1.4 billion, but regaining important works that have been lost for 70 years is truly priceless.

Bad News

Improper burial

So much for honouring our brave veterans. As Remembrance Day approaches, new figures from the parliamentary budget officer show that impoverished—and, in some cases, homeless—former soldiers are not receiving the dignified burials they deserve. A report released last year revealed that 67 per cent of requests made to the “last post fund” were rejected, largely because a veteran’s annual income had to be less than $12,010 to qualify for funeral costs. The latest stats are equally disturbing: Only $18.4 million of the fund’s $65 million will actually be handed out this year.

Show trial

Just one day after John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state, visited Cairo and praised the military junta for its tentative efforts to restore democracy, the world was reminded of just how far Egypt has to go. The opening of the trial of deposed president Mohamed Morsi and 14 other officials for the killing of opposition demonstrators was a travesty. Journalists in the courtroom chanted for his execution, rival lawyers got into scuffles and the co-defendants insisted they’ve been tortured. There may be order in Egypt, but there’s not much law.

Still need more proof?

A leaked discussion draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s next report paints a bleak picture of our future. Worsening droughts, famines, deadly heat waves, animal extinctions and massive infrastructure failures due to extreme weather lie ahead, says the group. And cities, where most of us now live, will be most vulnerable. The evidence and scientific consensus is now overwhelming, which raises the question: When are politicians finally going to take action?

Halloweenies

A high school vice-principal in Caledon, Ont., is under investigation for wearing a “Mr. T” costume on Halloween—complete with blackface. In Virginia, a mother encouraged her seven-year-old son to go trick-or-treating in a Ku Klux Klan outfit. And in Michigan, a woman went to work dressed up as a Boston Marathon bombing victim: running shorts, contestant number and fake bloodstains on her legs. It’s hard to decide which costume is most insulting.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/good-news-bad-news-8/feed/0Veterans Charter leaves some vets in poverty once they retire: reporthttp://www.macleans.ca/general/veterans-charter-leaves-some-vets-in-poverty-once-they-retire-report/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/veterans-charter-leaves-some-vets-in-poverty-once-they-retire-report/#commentsTue, 01 Oct 2013 20:00:59 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=427763OTTAWA – The federal government must be prodded to continue making improvements to its so-called veterans charter to ensure vulnerable former soldiers aren’t left living in poverty, Canada’s veterans ombudsman…

OTTAWA – The federal government must be prodded to continue making improvements to its so-called veterans charter to ensure vulnerable former soldiers aren’t left living in poverty, Canada’s veterans ombudsman said Tuesday.

Guy Parent’s long-awaited assessment of the government’s so-called veterans charter found that veterans are receiving inadequate compensation from the government for their pain and suffering.

Hundreds of severely disabled veterans, in particular, will also take a financial hit once they retire because some of their benefits will end and they don’t have military pensions, Parent says in the report.

Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino has said the government will support a House of Commons committee as it looks at how changes to the charter enacted in 2011 have affected those benefits.

But additional changes are needed — and quickly, said Parent, who acknowledged that both his own office and veterans organizations across Canada must compel politicians to keep their promises to fix a broken system.

“We have been working on the veterans charter improvements for many years and so have many other veterans representative groups,” he told a news conference in Ottawa.

“What is important here is to hold the parliamentarians to their promise when they first introduced it, that there will be continuous improvement.

“And it’s very hard to believe that statement when in fact for six years there was nothing done about the charter.”

The ombudsman’s office carried out a detailed comparison of benefits and entitlements under the new veterans charter and those from the old pension-for-life system used since the end of the First World War.

The Conservatives overhauled the charter in 2011 following complaints that it was nowhere near as generous as the old system. Those enhancements, which included more money to replace lost income, will be reviewed by MPs this fall.

A review of Bill C-55, which enacted the enhancements made in 2011, is required by legislation.

But Fantino has already committed to a comprehensive review that will go beyond what is required, said spokesman Joshua Zanin.

“The report that has been put together by the ombudsman will specifically be used to inform the broader review that the minister has called for.”

Parent dismissed the suggestion that improving benefits to veterans is a pricey proposition.”The cost of doing nothing now will have a humongous human cost later on,” he said.

Improving disability awards to veterans would cost taxpayers about $70 million, said the report.

In addition, access to allowances and supplements for permanent impairments is expected to run between $8 million and $10 million annually.

Concerns about gaps in compensation payments for veterans are nothing new, and the government has had ample time to correct the situation, said NDP defence critic Jack Harris.

“It should have and could have been done before,” Harris said, adding that the time for more review is over.

It remains unclear just how Tuesday’s report will impact an ongoing lawsuit by former service members who took part in the mission in Afghanistan.

The younger veterans argue that the new charter discriminates against them and provides less to them than soldiers who served in the Second World War, Korea and on peacekeeping operations.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/veterans-charter-leaves-some-vets-in-poverty-once-they-retire-report/feed/1Veteran Affairs eliminates nearly 300 jobs in deficit-reduction fighthttp://www.macleans.ca/news/veteran-affairs-eliminates-nearly-300-jobs-in-deficit-reduction-fight/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/veteran-affairs-eliminates-nearly-300-jobs-in-deficit-reduction-fight/#commentsFri, 21 Jun 2013 01:04:08 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=397948OTTAWA – Nearly 300 positions at Veterans Affairs Canada are being eliminated as a result of measures in the 2012 federal budget.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union…

OTTAWA – Nearly 300 positions at Veterans Affairs Canada are being eliminated as a result of measures in the 2012 federal budget.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union representing the federal workers, was served with a letter June 17 notifying it that 297 positions are “affected” by the reoganization.

Of those 224 jobs will actually be cut, as opposed to be reallocated.

The department’s headquarters on P.E.I., locations in Ottawa and field offices across the country will be affected by the measures.

The vast majority of the reductions — 153 — will be made in Charlottetown.

The overhaul of the department will take until 2015, and the Harper government has consistently said it will not affect services to ex-members of the military and the RCMP.

A spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney said the affected positions are information technology and communications, and do not affect client services.

“As promised we are maintaining and improving service as well as the delivery of our services and benefits to Veterans and we are confident that these back office reductions can be managed through the close to 700 employees eligible to retire in the coming years,” said Niklaus Schwenker in an email.

But the union isn’t buying it, noting the federal government recently signed a $318-million contract with a private, for-profit company to deliver some services being chopped in the public sector.

Officials say many veterans are losing access to front-line, face-to-face service from public service workers, and instead are being told to call a toll-free number or use a computer at a Service Canada office.

“The reduction of front-line staff at Veterans Affairs is being made on the backs of their clients, the veterans — the heroes of our nation, the men and women who have sacrificed their health and lives for the safety and security of Canadians,” Yvan Thauvette, president of the Union of Veterans Affairs Employees, said in a statement.

“The needs of veterans are becoming greater and more complex, requiring collaboration between provincial and federal departments. Employees are working with fewer resources with more complex legislation and programs.”

Further to this, CBC reported last week that the government will close eight Veterans Affairs offices. Christie Blatchford has reported that military reserve budgets are being slashed. The Canadian Forces recruiting centre in Windsor has closed. And Canada Post is considering service cuts.

In Vancouver, the Kitsilano Coast Guard station was quietly closed last week, apparently to the surprise of Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson. Global News wonders if the closure has something to do with selling the land the station is located on.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-30/feed/23Vets kept in the dark over medical records and claim applications: ombudsmanhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/vets-kept-in-the-dark-over-medical-records-and-claim-applications-ombudsman/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/vets-kept-in-the-dark-over-medical-records-and-claim-applications-ombudsman/#commentsMon, 04 Feb 2013 19:10:01 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=346417OTTAWA – The veterans ombudsman says ex-soldiers and members of the RCMP should no longer be at the mercy of government institutions when it comes to submitting their disability applications.…

OTTAWA – The veterans ombudsman says ex-soldiers and members of the RCMP should no longer be at the mercy of government institutions when it comes to submitting their disability applications.

Guy Parent’s new report calls on the federal government to stop keeping veterans in the dark over the medical records used to decide on compensation claims.

Under the current system, when a claim is filed the applicant’s medical records are requested from either the military, the RCMP or Library and Archives Canada, if the documents date back decades.

Federal bureaucrats also cherry-pick the records that are deemed relevant, a process known as flagging, before they are sent on to an adjudicator for review.

The applicant never gets a copy of the submitted records, nor the chance to point out whether documents are missing.

Parent says the process infringes on the applicant’s ability to substantiate claims, and may even result in a biased decision.

“It’s certainly an unfair procedure,” Parent said in an interview Monday. “Fairness demands the individual be able to participate, but there is no participation whatsoever.”

The ombudsman says it isn’t a deliberate attempt to inject bias, as some veterans groups have suggested over the years.

Instead, Parent said, the procedures have evolved over the years, sometimes at the expense of fairness.

“You can’t forget there’s fairness for the applicant as well as for the administrator, and in this case in point, it seems we’ve forgotten the applicant’s side, which is important,” he said.

Although the ombudsman’s office did not investigate specific accusations of bias, it has received complaints about the application process since the Harper government established Parent’s watchdog agency.

“This is an apprehension of bias,” he said, noting that some adjudicator might restrict their review strictly to the flagged documents, where other documents could be pertinent.

TORONTO – Federal government auditors have completed an on-site inspection of Canada’s largest veterans facility prompted by complaints about substandard treatment and neglect of its most frail residents.

The three-person audit team, which included two nursing professionals, is now analyzing resident charts and other data provided by the Sunnybrook Veterans Centre, home to about 500 Second World War and Korean War vets.

According to multiple sources, the auditors from Veterans Affairs Canada spent much of last week at the centre — its first inspection by any level of government in more than seven years.

Auditors interviewed or heard from more than 100 relatives or residents either privately or in groups.

“A significant part of this comprehensive audit is the specialized auditors’ meeting with the families of veterans and veterans themselves,” said Niklaus Schwenker, a spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney.

In a series of articles in recent weeks, The Canadian Press outlined numerous concerns raised by relatives of elderly vets who are, by and large, dependent on care.

The complaints include unexplained injuries, rough treatment, neglect of basic hygiene and infection-control procedures, delayed feedings, residents abandoned for hours on end or left languishing in bed for days, and a dearth of physiotherapy or rehabilitation opportunities.

The articles prompted Blaney to order a “comprehensive” audit of the centre, which receives about $26 million from the feds and another $29.2 million from Ontario for 310 of the beds that fall under provincial regulation.

The province, which at first indicated it would also pursue an audit, subsequently washed its hands of the complaints, saying now it sees no need to inspect the facility — something it routinely does with other long-term-care homes.

Instead, Ontario’s Ministry of Health said it would defer to Sunnybrook, which says it is hiring an external reviewer to look into the complaints separate from the federal inspection.

“(The ministry) is confident that Sunnybrook is capable of undertaking a review of patient concerns to ensure quality and safety,” said spokesman David Jensen.

Sunnybrook, which maintains its care is exemplary and blames complaints on a handful of malcontents, said it would have details of its proposed review in the new year.

In addition to helping look after their loved ones themselves, some relatives have hired caregivers at taxpayers’ expense because of concerns about the living conditions in the veterans centre.

One such companion, who spoke to the auditors, said nurses were prepped ahead of the inspection about what to say.

The woman, who asked not to be named because she feared reprisals, said staff were told to say residents’ diapers were changed “on a regular basis,” which she said does not happen.

Residents are sometimes left to sit in their own urine and feces for as long as 10 hours, she said.

The companion said she saw improper handling of a resident that led to skin tear, requiring four nurses to stop the bleeding.

Staff, she said, decide all too quickly some residents are simply not worth offering therapy.

“There’s a lot more family members that have complaints but they’re too scared to even come forward,” she said. “They’re afraid of retaliation against their loved ones.”

The flurry of activity that preceded the audit has subsided and residents are again being abandoned, especially in off-hours, she and other family members said.

In his written submission to the auditors, John Marriott described how his largely immobile father-in-law was found with a tooth knocked out — apparently after somehow crawling out of bed and smashing his face on the floor — and died within days.

The man lived in fear of one nurse, Marriott said.

“I swear she will kill me if she gets a chance,” he cited his relative as saying.

Sunnybrook, which has said it can’t discuss individual complaints because of privacy concerns, points to surveys of residents and family members as indicative of the superior care it offers. It has also said it welcomed the audit.

The auditors — watched by two senior representatives of the veterans ombudsman — also observed various shift rotations, feedings and other practices, both during the day and in the evening.

The team is now poring over 100 patient files — with the permission of the residents or their legal representatives — as well as other documentation from the hospital.

Once the data analysis is over — likely by the end of next month — the auditors will generate a report that will initially be circulated internally before being posted publicly.

“We look forward to the results of the audit when fully complete,” Schwenker said.

Schwenker and veterans ombudsman Guy Parent, who was debriefed this week on the site audit, said it would be premature to comment on any findings.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/on-site-audit-of-veterans-facility-sparked-by-neglect-complaints-complete/feed/1Veterans board given mild rebuke by Commons committeehttp://www.macleans.ca/general/veterans-board-given-mild-rebuke-by-commons-committee/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/veterans-board-given-mild-rebuke-by-commons-committee/#commentsTue, 11 Dec 2012 17:43:25 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=326570OTTAWA – A House of Commons committee has issued a mild rebuke of a controversial agency that hears the benefits complaints of ex-soldiers.
The all-party veterans committee told the Veterans…

OTTAWA – A House of Commons committee has issued a mild rebuke of a controversial agency that hears the benefits complaints of ex-soldiers.

The all-party veterans committee told the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) on Tuesday that it needs to reassess the way it does business when it comes to the independence of those hearing the cases and the evidence rules on which decisions are based.

“While the committee recognizes the need for veterans to provide evidence to substantiate their cases, which in turn ensures consistency in VRAB’s decision making, witness testimony suggests that the burden of proof on veterans may have become too high,” said the report.

The agency has been at the centre of an on-again-off-again political storm with veterans, veterans organizations and even former members of the board complaining that ex-soldiers face demeaning treatment, and unreasonable demands to prove their disabilities are related to their time in the military.

Many veterans loathe the quasi-judicial board, describing it as a dumping ground for partisan hacks, and say the seemingly endless bureaucratic process does not get them down as much as the snide comments and less-than-sympathetic attitude.

The committee heard about eight hours of testimony from critics and the board itself.

Former board member Harold Leduc came forward earlier this year with accusations that the agency was biased against veterans claims.

The committee also told the board it needs to give ex-soldiers more benefit of the doubt when assessing their appeals.

“The committee believes that one of the possible reasons why VRAB lost the trust and respect of some veterans pertains to the fact that some veterans feel that they are not getting the benefit of the doubt with regard to the evidence they present to the board,” the report said.

Opposition parties say the committee should have gone farther in its condemnation, pointing out that the Conservative majority restricted the amount of time for the study.

Liberal veterans critic Sean Casey went as far as to accuse the Harper government of excluding witnesses, especially smaller veterans groups who deal with complaints about the agency regularly.

New Democrat veterans critic Peter Stoffer, who has introduced a private members bill to scrap the board, describes the report as a “sham.”

Earlier this year, the veterans ombudsman issued a report expressing concern about the number of times ex-soldiers have had to go to the Federal Court because their claims were rejected by the board.

The board did not agree with much of what it heard during the committee investigation, and on the last day of hearings the chairman, John Larlee, appeared for a second time.

He referred to “inaccuracies” presented to the committee by “previous witnesses and sought to provide ‘clarifications.’”

Larlee told the committee the board “strives for fairness and impartiality in everything it does, that it treats all veterans, members of the CF and the RCMP, and their families with dignity and respect.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/veterans-board-given-mild-rebuke-by-commons-committee/feed/1Veterans shelve medals in protest on Remembrance Dayhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/veterans-shelve-medals-in-protest-on-remembrance-day/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/veterans-shelve-medals-in-protest-on-remembrance-day/#commentsFri, 09 Nov 2012 12:57:53 +0000The Canadian Presshttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=313277OTTAWA – Tom Hoppe earned the Medal of Bravery and the affectionate nickname “Dances With Bullets” for his heroic August 1994 sprint into sniper fire to rescue three children pinned…

OTTAWA – Tom Hoppe earned the Medal of Bravery and the affectionate nickname “Dances With Bullets” for his heroic August 1994 sprint into sniper fire to rescue three children pinned down in the civil war fury of Visoko, Bosnia.

That medal along with others the former army sergeant earned, including the Meritorious Service Cross will sit on a shelf this Remembrance Day in a quiet but symbolic protest against the Harper government.

The fact one of Canada’s most decorated soldiers, and a respected voice in the peacekeeping community, chose to remove his medals a decision some troops consider sacrilege speaks volumes about the level of frustration and disillusionment among ex-soldiers and their families.

“It’s very, very hard choice for me to do this … but I don’t know what else to do,” Hoppe said Thursday in an interview with The Canadian Press.

“As long as people understand there’s no disrespect to veterans whatsoever. It’s just a choice I’ve made because I can’t sit on the sidelines and do nothing anymore. And I’ve tried everything I can. I’ve tried to work with Veterans Affairs and the government, but every time we go to Veterans Affairs with ideas and stuff it’s a confrontational approach.”

The protest is also a way to show supports for ex-soldiers who have launched court challenge against the government’s marquee legislation, the New Veterans Charter approved by all parties, enacted by the Conservatives in 2006 and defended by the government ever since.

Hoppe also said the government has failed to completely atone for a privacy scandal.

It has settled out of court with advocate Sean Bruyea, but others have yet to receive an apology including Hoppe, whose privacy records show his medical information was sought by officials after he expressed concern about the veterans charter in 2006.

Another veteran, former warrant officer Harold Leduc, chose two weeks ago not to wear his medals in protest over his own privacy breaches.

The growing discontent, at times, mystifies and exasperates Conservatives who’ve introduced a series of changes and improvements meant to take the sting out of veterans complaints.

Both Hoppe and outspoken critic Mike Blais of Canadian Veterans Advocacy say the amendments don’t address the central issue.

The New Veterans Charter overhauled the way ex-soldiers are compensated and moved away from a pension-for-life system into a workers compensation-style lump-sum payment.

No matter how the government dresses it up, said Blais, the system has created two classes of veterans those on the old system and those on the new system who often get less and face a variety of caveats.

“We believe in one veteran, and one standard,” Blais said.

“Justice is what those veterans (involved in the class-action lawsuit) are seeking,. They do not want anything more than those that served at Juno Beach were accorded. They do not want anything more than those that fought at Dieppe, at Kayong, at Vimy.”

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney said the government has been transforming the system, pointing to a recent $177 million injection of cash to halt a long-term disability clawback.

“We are just a phone call away” for help, Blaney said.

That didn’t stop disabled veterans and military widows from unleashing a broadside of frustration Thursday on Parliament Hill, complaining of bureaucratic indifference and red tape that flies in the face of Blaney’s reassurances.

Few of the government’s touted programs meant to help combat veterans find civilian jobs actually help the disabled, said retired master corporal Dave Desjardins, who suffers from an extreme lower back injury.

Desjardins said he was proud to serve his country.

“What I’m not proud of, however, is how our government officials and senior military leadership can look directly into the camera (and) speak to the Canadian public about honouring our veterans at this time of year with implied conviction when they’ve clearly turned their back on us and continue to demonstrate (that) on a daily basis,” said Desjardins.

He challenged Blaney to look him in the eye “and tell me you really care.”

The government recently threw its weight behind a so-called “helmets-to-hardhats” program, which aids ex-soldiers get into the construction industry a wonderful resource for someone without physical limitations, said Desjardins.

A number of officials “in expensive suits” are on the record as saying there are a number of opportunities for disabled veterans, but Desjardins said many of the head hunters discriminate in favour of officers, leaving non-commissioned members out in the cold.

“I’m here to ask those suits one simple question: Show me. Show me where those opportunities and jobs are and I’m not just asking for myself, Im also asking for the hundreds of other disabled veterans across Canada.”

Tracy Kerr, wife of a triple amputee who fought in Afghanistan, said she and her family have battled for years to get basic needs, such as a lift to get her husband in and out of the bathtub.

“I’ve travelled seven hours to speak to the public about how we’re struggling,” said Kerr, from Sudbury, Ont., her eyes filling with tears as she spoke.

“I just want a quality of life, happiness for my family and when we make requests for his needs, to get them.”

Jackie Girouard, whose husband was killed by a roadside bomb in Kandahar in 2006, said the families of many soldiers are denied access to the veterans independence program, which helps with yard work and light housekeeping.

She said policies which set time limits on accepting assistance, such as two years for education and job retraining, are insensitive and unrealistic.

“I was with my husband for 31 years, and I make no apologies for how long it took to me to get this far without my husband,” she said.

“They could’ve said to me: ‘Jackie, take your time and when you’re ready come see us and we’ll work together to help you achieve you and your family’s goals.’ Those words alone would have demonstrated to me that you care.”

OTTAWA – New Democrats have introduced a private member’s bill to scrap an oft-maligned board where ex-soldiers can appeal the denial of benefits by the federal government.

MP Peter Stoffer, the party’s veterans critic, says the review agency is the No. 1 problem facing individual veterans — and is seen as a place where they have to plead for what is rightfully theirs.

“The problem that many, many veterans face is when they appear before this politically appointed, non-accountable board is that they feel like they’re begging for something,” Stoffer said Wednesday.

“They feel they’re coming cap in hand.”

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board has been at the centre of complaints — even from one of its own members — that it disrespects and sometimes belittles veterans who appear before it.

Last winter, several former members of the military described how they’d faced snide, often disrespectful comments from board members who sat in judgment of their claims. The agency was also at the centre of a scandal, where one of its members said his private medical information was spread around to discredit him because he too often sided with veterans.

One ex-soldier, George Villeneuve, says two of his friends committed suicide after being turned down for help.

“A lot of people appearing before a board like that are already pretty ill and they don’t have the strength to continue and that’s their last resort,” said Villeneuve, a 20-year veteran.

“And when they’re being denied and turned back, what other resort do they have? Some of them do eventually commit suicide. I know of two personally.”

Stoffer said he wouldn’t go as far as directly blaming the review board for suicides, but he said he believes that some of the negative decisions have contributed to homelessness among young veterans who spiral out of control when they don’t get support.

Villeneuve, who appeared with Stoffer on Parliament Hill, says his claim of post-traumatic stress was turned down at the first stage of the board’s review process, even though he says he had all of the appropriate letters from doctors.

He was forced to bring his doctor to the appeal hearing in order to win his case.

The NDP says the board’s $11-million annual budget could be plowed back into benefits for ex-soldiers, and that challenges to the initial applications for benefits can be handled through an internal peer-review process.

Earlier this week, the chairman of the review board was before a House of Commons committee defending his use of taxpayers’ money for two trips to a lecture series in Britain — $7,285.97 that John Larlee repaid, even though he told MPs it was “worthwhile” and of benefit to him as head of the board.

A spokesman for Veteran Affairs Minister Steven Blaney accused the NDP of wanting to cut direct services to veterans by abolishing the board.

“We are one of the only countries in the world to provide this independent review mechanism for veterans and we are proud to be the only country that also pays the legal fees for veterans who choose to use this review process,” Niklaus Schwenker said in an email.

“Our government is determined to protect this independent forum for veterans and we will continue to stand up for veterans by protecting and improving the important benefits they deserve.”

Before coming to office in 2006, the Conservatives campaigned to abolish the board.

Stoffer says his private member’s bill has the support of veterans groups.

OTTAWA – The Harper government spent $750,462 in legal fees fighting veterans over the clawback of military pensions, documents tabled in Parliament show.

Federal Liberals have been demanding to see a breakdown of Ottawa’s legal costs in the class-action lawsuit launched by veterans advocate Dennis Manuge, of Halifax.

The response was tabled in Parliament last week, but Justice Minister Rob Nicholson refused to release an itemized count, invoking solicitor-client privilege.

Instead, he released a global amount for the lawsuit, which has been dragging its way through the courts since March 2007.

Liberal veterans critic Sean Casey described the legal bill as an “obscene waste of taxpayers’ money.”

In abandoning the legal fight, the government appointed Stephen Toope, the president of the University of British Columbia, to lead negotiations with Manuge’s legal team to arrive at a settlement, including retroactive payments.

The settlement could run as high as $600 million, depending upon how many years back the federal compensation plan will go, say internal government estimates.

Casey said that given the amount of money at stake, he could see the government fighting it tooth and nail — if it had a strong case.

“The court didn’t see any merit; the court didn’t equivocate. The court slammed them,” he said.

“They had a weak case from the get-go and it was absolutely irresponsible. The responsible thing for them to do was not to force litigation, but to sit down when this problem reared its ugly head and come to a negotiated settlement.”

In siding with veterans last May, Judge Robert Barnes “unreservedly” rejected the government’s arguments.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney announced in June the government would not appeal a Federal Court of Canada ruling that rejected clawbacks from the pensions of disabled veterans.

The class-action lawsuit involved Manuge and 4,500 other disabled veterans whose long-term disability benefits were reduced by the amount of the monthly Veterans Affairs disability pension they receive.

The ex-soldiers argued it was unfair and unjust to treat pain and suffering awards as income.

MacKay ordered the clawback to end in July, but there are still some veterans who face the deduction.

Ex-soldiers whose additional awards and payments exceed the limit of 75 per cent of their military salary — often those who were most severely injured — say they’re still not being treated fairly.

Those veterans with the most grievous injuries are entitled to receive the maximum benefit, particularly since many can’t work, advocates have said.

Sarah Schmidt tries to figure out what the cuts will mean to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The Customs and Immigration Union says border services cuts mean it will be harder to intercept “hardened criminals such as sexual predators.” A letter from aboriginal leaders seems to justify the elimination of the National Aboriginal Health Organization, but ITK leader Mary Simon quibbles. And in addition to the humans who will be laid off, dogs are also being put out of work.

Nineteen of the 72 dogs used by the Canadian Border Services Agency across the country, which are trained to sniff out guns, cash and drugs, were given their pink slips and will be put up for adoption, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ office confirmed Friday. “We expect the CBSA to use the most effective tools for each job. Detector dogs are a great tool in the right circumstances, but they will no longer be used when there is a better tool available. To be clear, all drug detector dogs at land border crossings will remain in place,” Toews’ press secretary Julie Carmichael told the Star.

According to reports from across the country, CBSA dog handlers had tears in their eyes when they got the news that their four-legged partners were being shown the door. Jason McMichael, first national vice-president of the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), told the Star that the decision has serious consequences. “Taking away tools such as the detector dog service will make smuggling easier. It will result in more guns and drugs on our street,” McMichael said, noting that Ottawa is also throwing away the money it cost to train these dogs.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/veterans-affairs-wont-be-exempt/feed/5To cut or not to cut Veterans Affairshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/to-cut-or-not-to-cut-veterans-affairs/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/to-cut-or-not-to-cut-veterans-affairs/#commentsTue, 06 Mar 2012 16:55:52 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=243939The House will vote this evening on an NDP motion to exempt Veterans Affairs from budget cuts.
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) honour the …

The House will vote this evening on an NDP motion to exempt Veterans Affairs from budget cuts.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) honour the service of Canadian military and RCMP veterans and their families by committing to not cut Veterans Affairs Canada in the upcoming budget; and (b) provide programs and services to all military and RCMP veterans and their families in a timely and comprehensive manner.

Update 1:41pm. The government side has proposed amending the motion so that it reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: a) honour the service of Canadian military and RCMP veterans and their families by committing to maintain Veterans’ benefit and b) provide programs and services to all military and RCMP veterans and their families in a timely and comprehensive manner.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/to-cut-or-not-to-cut-veterans-affairs/feed/13Supporting the veteranshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/supporting-the-veterans/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/supporting-the-veterans/#commentsFri, 11 Nov 2011 18:12:08 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=225014The former veterans ombudsman is scathing in his criticism of Veterans Affairs and veterans advocates are worried about cuts. The current ombudsman suggests the department should be exempt from budget…

The former veterans ombudsman is scathing in his criticism of Veterans Affairs and veterans advocates are worried about cuts. The current ombudsman suggests the department should be exempt from budget cuts.

“If the government ensures us that they will not achieve their economies on the back of veterans, then that means that the 5 or 10 per cent will have to come from the other portion of the budget, which is the salary of people and operations expenses,” Mr. Parent said in a telephone interview.

“Any reduction in people would certainly have a negative impact on accessing programs and administering programs, so we are concerned.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/supporting-the-veterans/feed/1The quiet cutshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-9/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-9/#commentsFri, 21 Oct 2011 20:43:36 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=221212The government is eliminating 42 jobs with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
The Department of Fisheries will have its budget cut by $56.8 million.
And Veterans Affairs will be cutting…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-9/feed/9The quiet cutshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-8/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-quiet-cuts-8/#commentsFri, 14 Oct 2011 22:35:20 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=220317Veterans Affairs is planning to trim its budget by $226 million.
Environment Canada has cancelled a $547,000 per year agreement with the Canadian Environmental Network.
And a subscription to a…

The 54 Veterans Affairs bureaucrats who accessed the personal files of VA critic Sean Bruyea and used the confidential information to smear him as unstable have been issued reprimands and suspended for three days. An outraged Bruyea called the penalties a “slap on the wrist,” saying he received guarantees from Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn that people would be fired over the matter. The revelations about VA bureaucrats improperly handling Bruyea’s personal file first surfaced last fall, when the federal privacy commissioner’s ruled that privacy laws had been violated. The government settled out-of-court- for $400,000 and an apology to Bruyea. Minister Blackburn defended the punishment, saying VA bureaucrats have learned their lesson. “I don’t want to excuse what happened,” said Blackburn, “but it was part of the reality of the department at the time.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/veterans-affairs-bureaucrats-penalized-for-violating-critics-privacy/feed/3Supporting the troopshttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/supporting-the-troops/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/supporting-the-troops/#commentsWed, 22 Sep 2010 14:14:16 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=148601CP reports on what seems a particularly dark turn in the discussion about how we care for veterans of armed conflict.
Confidential medical and financial information belonging to an outspoken …

CP reports on what seems a particularly dark turn in the discussion about how we care for veterans of armed conflict.

Confidential medical and financial information belonging to an outspoken critic of Veterans Affairs, including part of a psychiatrist’s report, found its way into the briefing notes of a cabinet minister.

Highly personal information about Sean Bruyea was contained in a 13-page briefing note prepared by bureaucrats in 2006 for then minister Greg Thompson, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press. The note, with two annexes of detailed information, laid out in detail Bruyea’s medical and psychological condition.